WASHINGTON --The Federal Election Commission has recently made public action on four matters previously under review (MURs). In MUR 5657, the Commission found reason to believe that David Wittig and Douglas Lake, two officers at Westar Energy, Inc., violated the law by facilitating corporate contributions. However, because the two officers have already been criminally prosecuted for their other activities at Westar, the Commission decided to admonish them and to take no further action.

In MUR 5380, the Commission found reason to believe the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) violated the law by failing to use a disclaimer in a telephone bank, but took no further action because the violations were the result of vendor error, and the NRCC has implemented new and effective quality control measures.

The Commission found no reason to believe the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee (MDSCC) and John Dingell for Congress violated the law by coordinating their activities and by failing to place a disclaimer correctly in a printed ad. The Commission found there was no evidence of coordination, and the law does not require federally compliant disclaimers on communications that are wholly in connection with a non-federal election.

This matter was generated because the respondents were severed from MUR 5573 (see Press Release - August 18, 2005). David Wittig and Douglas Lake were officers of Westar Energy, Inc. when Westar facilitated $39,900 in contributions to 21 federal political committees. The Commission found reason to believe that both violated the law by consenting to facilitate corporate contributions. During the Commission’s investigation, Wittig and Lake were being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Kansas on multiple counts of the corporate wrongdoing while at Westar. Wittig was sentenced to 18 years in prison and was ordered to pay nearly $50 million in fines rendered as restitution. Lake was sentenced to 15 years in prison and was ordered to pay fines and restitution of almost $8 million. After considering the circumstances of the case, including the criminal sentence and penalties, the Commission admonished both Wittig and
Lake, but decided to take no further action and to close the case.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5657 under case number in the Enforcement Query System. They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

The complaint filed in this matter alleged that Congressman Tom DeLay solicited campaign contributions via phone calls under the guise of an award program. A review of the public record revealed that the NRCC was the source of the phone bank. The Commission found reason to believe that the NRCC may not have included disclaimers in these solicitations after November 2002, in violation of the law. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) specifies that public communications through telephone banks require disclaimers. The NRCC provided a description of how its current disclaimer policy changed before and after BCRA’s effective date and submitted copies of scripts illustrating those changes. The NRCC acknowledged that, while most of its telemarketing vendors complied with the disclaimer policy, InfoCision, its largest telemarketing vendor and the vendor for the calls in question, had difficulty implementing and adequately complying with the policy. The Commission found reason to believe that a violation occurred. However, given the information indicating that the violations were the result of vendor error and the subsequent NRCC quality control measures and their apparent effectiveness, the Commission decided to send an admonishment letter and to take no further action.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering
5380
under case number in the Enforcement Query System. They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

(a) No reason to believe*[re: disclaimer; used of non-federal funds; failure to report disbursements]

(b-c) No reason to believe* [re: any provision of the Act]

The complaint alleged that the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee, John D. Dingell for Congress Committee and Representative John D. Dingell may have violated the law by coordinating a public communication in the form of a mass mailing which included a photograph of and a quotation attributed to Representative Dingell. The mailer was produced and distributed by the MDSCC in support of Kathy Angerer, a candidate for state office. Respondents provided affidavits specifically rebutting any factual basis for allegations that the MDSCC’s or the Dingell Committee’s conduct constituted coordination under the Act and regulations. The Commission also found no reason to believe MDSCC violated the law regarding the use of non-federal funds or other disclaimer and reporting requirements because the mailings were in connection with non-federal elections. A Statement of Reasons was issued by Chairman Toner, Vice Chairman Lenhard and Commissioners Mason, Walther, Weintraub and von Spakovsky.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5600 under case number in the Enforcement Query System. They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

The complaint alleged that Robinson for Congress accepted 10 excessive contributions designated for the 2006 North Carolina primary election. In its April Quarterly Report, the Committee indicated that it received 10 contributions in the amount of $4,200 each, which were designated for the primary election. On May 18, 2006, the Reports Analysis Division sent the Committee a Request for Additional Information (RFAI) requesting further information concerning the apparent excessive contributions. On June 19, 2006, the Committee filed an amended April Quarterly Report showing that the contributions were properly redesignated. After a review of the merits of this case in furtherance of the Commission’s priorities and resources, the Commission decided to exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the case.

*The Enforcement Priority System (EPS) rates all incoming cases against objective criteria to determine whether they warrant use of the Commission’s limited resources.

Cases dismissed under EPS fall into two categories: low rated and stale cases. Low rated cases are those that do no warrant use of the Commission’s resources to pursue because of their lower significance relative to other pending matters.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5746 under case number in the Enforcement Query System. They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

There are four administrative stages to the FEC enforcement process:

1. Receipt of proper complaint

3. “Probable cause” stage

2. “Reason to believe” stage

4. Conciliation stage

It requires the votes of at least four of the six Commissioners to take any action. The FEC can close a case at any point after reviewing a complaint. If a violation is found and conciliation cannot be reached, then the FEC can institute a civil court action against a respondent.